For those interested, here is another case (from 1895) where Dr. Bond contradicted the post mortem evidence of two other doctors.
Was he an acknowledged expert and lecturer in forensic medicine employed specifically in difficult cases...or an arrogant know it all and Anderson's lacky?

REGINA V. CHIPPERFIELD.

By THOMAS BOND, M.B., F.R.O.S.

This case is interesting from the fact that there was complete
divergence of opinion between the two medical men who made
the post-mortem examination on the deceased woman and
myself. I happened to be out of town when sent for by the
police to conduct the post-mortem examination, therefore the
two local medical men were left to themselves, unassisted by an
expert, and quite inexperienced in such examinations.

The Treasury Solicitor, on receiving their report, was
astonished at their deductions, and desired me to critically
examine the report and to read through the whole of the
evidence in the case.

I herewith append the report of the post-mortem examina-
tion, which, no doubt, was carried out with great care and was
perfectly accurate as to facts, but the deductions from those
facts were quite contrary to the opinion I formed, and to the
opinion subsequently formed by the judge and jury. The man
Chipperfield was found guilty and hanged.

The following extract from the Westminster Gazette is a con-
densed account of the trial.

TO BE HANGED THEOUGH A CUT IN A GLOYE.

CHIPPERPIELD SENTENCED TO DEATH.

At the Old Bailey, yesterday, Mr. Justice Kennedy commenced the
hearing of the trial of Alfred Chipperfield, who was charged with
murdering his wife in a cab in Ishngton on the night of December 18th,
1895. The prisoner was further charged with having attempted to
commit suicide.

In the course of his opening statement, Mr. Avory read the following
letter from the prisoner to the dead girl : — " If you only knew how I
feel, you would be sorry for writing to me like this. I love you from
the bottom of my heart, and no one else shall have you. I am not
going on the run any more.*'

The first witness, Mr. Herbert Austin, manufacturing chemist, of
106, Bermondsey Street, said the prisoner had been in his employ. On

42 Begina v. Chvpperfield.

the morning of December 6th last witness gave him some cheques to pay
in at the bank and an open cheque to cash. Prisoner never returned.
Prisoner's landlady said on December 6th about one o'clock he drove
up in a cab with a young lady. After changing his coat he drove off,
saying he would return in a few days.

John Stanley, driver of a four-wheel cab, said that on the evening of
December 18th he was engaged by prisoner and a young lady at
Euston Station and told to drive to some number in Annett Crescent,
Essex Boad. After stopping at a public-house, he then drove to the
White Horse public-house, Liverpool Boad. The young lady remained
in the cab and had a glass of wine, and he went inside with prisoner
to have a drink. The prisoner then went away for about an hour, and
on his return they drove towards Annett Crescent.

Dr. Robertson said from the character of the wound on the throat
alone he was of opinion that it was a case of suicide, but from the
position of the cut on the glova he did not think it could be so. Dr.
Gray, who made a post-mortem examination, said in his judgment the
wound on the woman's throat was self-inflicted, and done with the
left hand. Dr. Bond, police surgeon, said from all the evidence the
wound was one that was probably not self-inflicted. It was probably
caused by a man sitting or standing beside her in a cab. Cross-
examined: The cut on the glove particularly made him of opinion that
it was not a case of suicide.

In cross-examination. Dr. Bond said the wound alone was perfectly
consistent with its being self-inflicted with the left hand. The cut on
the glove was what convinced him that this was a homicidal cut.

No witnesses as to fact being called for the defence, Mr. Avory
summed up for the prosecution.

All this time Chipperfield sat emotionless in the box. Then Mr.
Geoghegan spoke out. The charge was murder or nothing, and no
motive had been assigned. All they had against him was the medical
evidence. " Gentlemen," said counsel, keenly, " are you going to hang
a man on the evidence of a dirty scrap of leather ? "

The judge said it was for the jury to decide between Dr. Bobinson,
Dr. Gray, and Dr. Bond. No motive had been shown for murder —
that was quite certain. But to his lordship it seemed equally certain
that there was no motive shown for suicide.

The jury, after forty-five minutes* retirement, found the prisoner
guilty of wilful murder.

Called upon to say why he should not be sentenced to death, prisoner
muttered : " I don't know anything about it, as I told you before, I
didn't do it."

His lordship said he was not at all prepared to say that he disagreed
with the verdict. He did not desire by a word to add to the horrors
of the prisoner's position.

Chipperfield listened to the death sentence with dogged suUenness,
leaning over the edge of the box. When the judge pronounced the last

Begina v. Chvpperfield. 43

solemn words, "And may the Lord Imve mercy on your soul," he raised
his eyes, which had been gazing down into the well of the court, and
said sullenly, '* And on yours." Then he walked down to the cells
between two warders.

Copy of notes taken at the post-mortem examination on body of

Maria Clark (alias Chipperfield).

1. Body healthy and well nourished.

2. An incised, clean cut wound of neck 3^ inches in length,
commencing about an inch below and half-an-inch to the inner
side of the angle of the jaw on the right side and extending
obliquely downwards and to the left, terminating at the inner
edge of the stemo-mastoid muscle, about 1 J inches below the
lower border of the jaw. Deep on the right side and getting
more and more superficial towards the left. Dividing the
superior thyroid and lingual arteries on the right side, and the
anterior jugular vein. Also the thyro-hyoid membrane.

3. Slight wound on forefinger of left hand.

4. Liver healthy. Weighs 2 lbs. 11 ozs.

5. Lungs. — Old adhesions round apex of right. Left per-
fectly healthy. Both float on water, but slightly congested.

I beg to report that I have read the whole of the
evidence given before the Coroner and the Magistrate in the
case of " Chipperfield." I have also had the opportunity of
reading Dr. Robinson's notes of the post-mortem examination.
I have carefully considered the whole of the medical evidence,
and am of opinion that Dr. Robinson's description of the wound
in the throat of Maria Clark or Chipperfield is clear and explicit,
but I do not agree with all his deductions. The wound

44 Begina v. Chvpperfield.

in the throat is not consistent with suicide unless the person
were left-handed. It is consistent with a homicidal wound
made by a right-handed person standing in front or on the
right side of the person attacked. The knife was plunged in
deeply on the right side of the woman's neck ; it opened the
pharynx between the base of the tongue and the larynx, and
divided the large veins of the neck and two important arteries.
The cut then gradually became more superficial, and ended
under the ear on the left side about half-an-inch lower than at
its commencement. Therefore, the direction of the cut was
slightly oblique downwards. This is exactly the cut, both in
direction and character, which I should expect a murderer to
make if standing or sitting in front or on the right side of a
person in a sitting position. The murderer, if using his right
hand, would cut away from himself and not draw the knife or
razor towards him. He would, therefore, necessarily make a
cut on the victim from right to left, and if he were higher the
wound would be from above downwards. Where it would begin
and where it would end would depend entirely on the relative
position of the two persons, and the evidence given on this
point is not justified.

I have been. shown by Detective-sergeant Buckle a woman's
glove of the left-hand with a flap cut on the outer side of the
forefinger. The cut is from above downwards and very super-
ficial, and is exactly the sort of cut that would be made by the
woman putting up her hand towards her throat and meeting
the razor after it had been drawn across the throat. There was
hardly any blood on the glove, as must have been the case if
the woman had cut her throat with her left hand, as suggested
by Dr. Gray, and made the cut in the glove with the heel of the
razor. Again, I think the evidence given by Dr. Gray on this
point is quite wrong. I have no doubt whatever that the
wound in the throat of Maria Clark or Chipperfield was a
homicidal wound, and that the cut in the glove was most
unlikely and almost impossible to have been caused by a razor
held in the woman's hand. No doubt the woman would be able
to scream until faint from loss of blood, but the cut underneath
the base of the tongue may have prevented articulation to some
extent.

I always thought it very strange that Dr. Bond chose to throw himself out of a window in 1901 in order to succeed in his goal to commit suicide... I would have thought that being such a learned medical person of many years standing, he would have had access to a variety of killer drugs that would have done the deed far less dramatically. Strange choice of method indeed...

I always thought it very strange that Dr. Bond chose to throw himself out of a window in 1901 in order to succeed in his goal to commit suicide... I would have thought that being such a learned medical person of many years standing, he would have had access to a variety of killer drugs that would have done the deed far less dramatically. Strange choice of method indeed...

Hi Phil.

I believe that Bond was bedridden and under near-constant supervision in his final days--he took advantage of a momentary absence of his caretaker to hurl himself from the window.

__________________Praise the glorious race of rats, one by one they'll join the dance....

Hi Debs,
Yes a very fine report of Dr Bond"s. But then when I re-read the autopsy report of Dr Brown ,who Dr Bond clearly totally disagreed with regarding the injuries of Catherine Eddowes,I was extremely impressed,so the production of any of their lengthy reports,autopsy reports in particular, confirms that their expertise as doctors was without question.It was the nature of these murders that baffled some of them.
But for me the question has never really been Dr Bond"s professional credentials in medicine/forensics etc.He was highly thought of,with reason and I accept that.
Still since you raise it, though, I have been a little surprised to see quite a bit of "imprecision" in his 10th November 1888 report on the five victims , where,for example, he believed there was evidence that they had all been killed by the same man though failed to provide "incontrovertible" proof of this apparent" fact".Dr Bond also seemed to be rather "way out" over the time of deaths, suggesting the victims Eddowes and Nichols could have been dead three or four hours,when actually they had only been dead minutes when they were found and within the half hour or three quarter of an hour of their examining doctor"s arriving [Eddowes and Nichols].
There are other inaccuracies too which we can go into if you like[but tomorrow rather than now as its nearly 1 am]
My view is that Dr Bond was being given a specific task: that of helping the police,and Robert Anderson in particular,to try to reach a conclusion about the Ripper"s anatomical skills,as there wasnt a consensus among doctors.Bond did so,but without having seen the victim"s injuries,save for Mary Kelly"s.
Dr Bond looked at the differing doctors /differing opinions and differing reports.
I believe very strongly that because of the differing interpretations by the previous doctors,who at least had the benefit of having seen the injuries,Dr Bond,who did NOT see the injuries for himself,was NOT in a position to be so "definite " about those previous four victims,or to overule the other doctors views.
As for Catherine Mylett,I have said many times that I accept totally the view of the police surgeon -in -chief, Mr A MacKellar and the four doctors who believed Catherine Mylett was murdered and that the case was not one of accidental strangulation by herself.
In each of these cases, I believe Dr Bond was under certain pressure from Robert Anderson,and I therefore suspect his "impartiality" and independent judgement.
Now Ben can come in and decontextualise my posts so they make no sense at all,if he so wishes,I will just say that if he does,I will cease to post on Casebook for good.
No hard feelings to you though Debs.You are a great researcher,I just dont agree with you over Dr Bond"s role in the Ripper Investigation.
Best Wishes
Norma

If others want to argue about that thats fine Debs,I dont, but I am happy at some later stage to discuss the politics of it.

Hi Norma, thanks,
I am really only posting this as another example (as in the Mylett case) of Dr Bond going against the opinions as to casue of death of other qualified medical men (two in this case) in an effort to see if other posters think Bond was the type of doctor who would bow to the pressure of Anderson or anyone else to make conclusions in a case, or if he was so confident in his own analytical and forensic abilities and experiences that he would completely do it off his own bat. There is at least one other case where Bond went against another medical man in the case of a woman on a charge of infanticide, Bond was allowed to give evidence even though he wasn't involved in the case and had been at the mortuary on other business and happened to see the newborn's post mortem taking place. Bond got the case against the woman dropped.

Thanks Magpie and Phil, Bond is an interesting charcter I agree. I totally agree with you Magpie on Bond's previous experiences, he was brought in on many famous murder cases to offer an opinion forensically at least going back to the Wainwright case in 75.

Eddowes [Time needed for perpetrator to kill and mutilate]—If you believe Doctor Brown's medical opinion, you also have to discount Doctor Phillips' medical opinion.

But if you trust in Doctor Bond's 10th November 1888 report, you have to discount Doctor Brown's medical opinion, which brings us back to Doctor Phillips possibly having been right all along and deals a severe blow to Jack the Ripper's legendary split-second timing at Hanbury Street and Mitre Square.

Bond also gave interesting opinions for the Mary Pearcey case. Fido, RJM and SBH discussed this in the most recent podcast. It's important in my opinion to look into how these men, both police and medical, responded in other cases in their careers and I thank Debs for posting the above.

But in any case, it's clear on scientific grounds that it would have been impossible for Phillips to estimate the time of Chapman's death with an accuracy better than an hour or two, so his opinion would be better ignored.

Bond also gave interesting opinions for the Mary Pearcey case. Fido, RJM and SBH discussed this in the most recent podcast. It's important in my opinion to look into how these men, both police and medical, responded in other cases in their careers and I thank Debs for posting the above.

JM

Thanks for mentioning the podcast Jonathon, it was very interesting to hear Sarah's opinions on the sloppy work of Dr. Bond in the Pearcey case,something outside of the ripper and definitely something I will take on board when looking at Dr. Bond.